The judge and the "f***ing travesty"

This week in Carlisle Magistrates' Court Beatrice Bolton was fined £2,500 on her conviction for failing to keep her dog under control. The dog had gone into her neighbours' garden and bitten the young man sunbathing there (this was on 31 May - not during the recent snow!).

OK - dog bites man - hardly news you may say.

But what makes the case interesting is that Beatrice Bolton is, in her day job, a Crown Court judge and that, when she was convicted, Ms Bolton shouted in court "this is a f***ing travesty!".

That behaviour puts her position as a Crown Court judge in jeopardy since it shows apparent disrespect for courts and the rule of law.

Judge Bolton has apologised and said the case had put her under terrible strain. But that could also be true of any defendant in criminal proceedings.

Personally I think Ms Bolton should continue as a judge and will be a better one for having had the experience of being in the dock and seeing the criminal justice system from a defendant's perspective.

Indeed I would like to see every judge, as part of their training, put in the dock to see the 'view' from there. But that is perhaps too much to hope for.

Interesting post (as always from David). Presumably f*** is the four letter Anglo-Saxon verb meaning to fornicate, which can be found in all respected dictionaries and is normally considered to be a swear word.

Whilst I should point out that I do not find the f word offensive, I was under the impression that swearing was not allowed on AWeb because AWeb readers would be unable to read it without feeling hurt and upset.

Maybe it was allowed because the "uck" was replaced by "***" so that no-one would actually know which word David was really thinking of. Quite frankly that is the only explanation I can think of. I accept that one or two of you might find this explanation ridiculous, but what other explanation could there be? Until I hear a better one, I will continue to think of AWeb as hypocritical and unable to justify its own policies (which, I accept, it is not required to do).

Having said all that however, I doubt that AWeb's willingness to permit legitimate debate will extend as far as allowing this post even to be seen.

I see that today's Guardian quotes the F word in full, whereas the BBC refers only to swearing. Most newspapers seem to have opted for the 'stars' approach as in, for example, the Daily Mail.

It may well be that the powers that be at AWEB have not yet seen this thread - perhaps I am due a ticking off, rather like the BBC radio anchorman who recently had a spooner style slip of the tongue when referring to the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. That's one I wouldn't put on AWEB!

Correct, Phil, but people always refer to it as swearing. In fact, I was told off, censored and accused of flaming by AWeb for describing QuickBooks as cr*p (although obviously I did not use asterisks); the justification being that it was a swear word.

It's interesting to see an argument over anglo saxon words which were once a normal part of the language but are now considered taboo. A fairly recent example being a very common name for chocolate coloured dogs including one owned by Guy Gibson of dambusters fame which is now taboo because it, apparantly, is offensive to one section of society yet, bizarrely, is often used by that same section of society as a term of endearment.

As regards this Judge, I have no doubt that many who have faced her in court feel that her rulings were "a f***ing travesty" too. The point about this outburst is that it shows total contempt for the court, and, in my opinion, there is no way that a Judge can continue to sit and expect respect for the court from others when she has shown no respect herself.

Thanks for bringing this up, we're always happy to debate our guidelines and their application.

When we devised the Discussion Groups we spoke in depth about how best they should be moderated. It was decided that the group managers would largely take control for the content within, and that, since they were private discussions we would not apply a heavy hand to minor bendings of the rules.

If anyone is offended, we apologise, but in this instance, and as it is a quote and is not aimed at any member in a dispute or intended to offend anyone, we decided it should stay. It is central to David's discussion post and it's a shame really that this discussion has centered around the use of language on Aweb rather than by a judge in court.

If its good enough for the front page of a newspaper, surely its good enough for AWeb. I'm afraid some people are starting to sound like the seriously sad people who are whinging about a couple of singers on XFactor being too sexy. Just shows how insidious political correctness and the influence of idiots like Harriet Harman can be.

BACK ON TOPIC - It doesnt matter what language the judge used, that is NOT the point. The point is that she showed disrespect for the court, and in so doing, demonstrated that she can no longer demand respect from others.

I think she should carry on in her job having given the public the knowledge that these people are nothing special, no better than the rest of us. Also she should only be judged on how she does her job, not what she does when she is not working. Mind you, after my previous posts I could hardly be calling for her to resign over using the f word.

C_D you intentionally said something offensive about Harriet Harman. Whilst I can't stand her either, and would have been quite happy with the use of a taboo word in connection with her, surely you fall foul of the intention-to-offend rule.

C_D you intentionally said something offensive about Harriet Harman. Whilst I can't stand her either, and would have been quite happy with the use of a taboo word in connection with her, surely you fall foul of the intention-to-offend rule.

What "rule" would that be? I would love the opportunity to tell that hatchet faced politically correct useless expenses fiddling muppet exactly what I think of her, B'Liar, McDoom and all the rest of the Labour rabble who have spent 13 years systematically destroying this country and selling us out to a bunch of EU civil serpants. And I wouldnt need to use a single swear word - just a barrel of tar and some feathers.

Getting back to topic - again ................... how can this judge now possibly complain if a defendant, or counsel, in her court fails to show respect for the court? How can she object if witnesses and counsel decsend into an expetive filled slanging match? Her authority is completely destroyed and she cannot be allowed to sit in judgement of others again.

Back to David's original point, having now read the article, I think he is being naive if he thinks she will have more compassion as a judge having now been in the dock herself. My view is that she still thinks she is in the right, has absolutely no remorse or contrition and is more likely to deliver overly harsh penalties out of spite, but that is just my personal opinion!

Can C_D be successfully sued for libel when his comments on expenses don't say anything that isn't already public knowledge?

Daily Telegraph - 25.0509 - "Harriet Harman and five other Cabinet ministers were told they had breached the Commons' rules on office expenses by allowing party political propaganda to be published in taxpayer-funded annual reports, leaflets and on taxpayer-funded websites."

What C_D didn't mention was how very hard she worked to try to keep the entire scandal under the table.

Wikipedia - "In January 2009, Harriet Harman, Leader of the House of Commons, tabled a motion which would exempt MPs' expenses from being disclosed under a Freedom of Information request, in order to prevent any further disclosure of information."

... the only derogatory reference to Harriet Harman that I can find in the early postings on this page is that she is an idiot. Arguably there may or may not be a direct link between that allegation and those published in the Telegraph, Wiki or elsewhere.

If it is a defamatory allegation (in other words if she is NOT in fact an idiot and she is some way damaged by propogating an illusion that she is), then I am not convinced that it is actionable, as it is clearly stated as an opinion. I may be wrong about that. Of course if she wished to sue then she would open up the debate in court as to whether she was in fact an idiot, which would be a valid defence. I doubt that she would want to go there.

I wouldn't dream of editing my post or removing those words. The truth cannot be libelous and I would love to have the opportunity to subpeona all Harman's expenses claims since she first entered parliament and to have then thoroughly investigated. I would, of course, then be obliged to file a money laundering report. It would be interesting to see exactly what she has claimed in detail, and, to also see what else she tried to claim in addition.

As regards the use of the term "idiot" - that of course is a matter of opinion, but, given her recorded track record on positive discrimination and political correctness, and some of the bizarre statements she has made in parliament (all of course proven by Hansard) I dont think there would be any difficulty in proving it to be a very reasonable opinion.

It seems to me that being rude about a politician and having a rant is fair game, but an allegation of dishonesty in financial matters (in the absence it would appear of any supporting evidence whatsoever) crosses a line that should not be crossed.

You may have noticed that this thread has been down for most of the day, sorry about this but we take allegations of libel seriously, and we must investigate them with proper procedure.

It is worth noting that David was quite right to bring this to our attention for review, and after reviewing the thread in its entirety, and looking at the supporting evidence offered up by other members, we are happy to conclude that no edits are deemed necessary at this time.

The important thing here is that C_D's comment is held within the context of breaching the 'Commons' rules on office expenses' as reported by the Telegraph and quoted later in the thread.

We value members who take an interest in our legal position, it sometimes hangs on a knife-edge, but this is a private discussion, full of 'consenting' adults and we feel that our legal position has not been compromised here, additionally, it is important to us that you feel free to 'get things off your chest' (within reason of course!) so since we can't offer a Q&A session between C_D and HH we'll have to make do here!

If anyone has any concerns or wants more information on our policy or procedure please get in touch with me.

Call me old fashioned if you like - but using the wrong stationery (even pre-paid envelopes) doesn't amount to "expenses fiddling" in my eyes - especially in the light of the current prosecutions of former members of parliament for submitting allegedly dishonest expenses claims.

Nor did it appear to me that that was the import of C_D's allegation, which he coupled with a later comment about investigating all Ms Harman's expenses claims.

what a killjoy - you obviously seem to think that everything should be reported to some authority or other. Nothing C_D has said is demonstrably wrong or libelous in my opinion - lighten up - long live free educated speech

a COMPLETE defence to an accusation of libel is that what was said is true, and of course in this case, there is the added justification that it is in the public interest that the facts be made public (which would completely rule out any attempt to stifle publication).

Whilst you may be an expert on money laundering, I suggest that your knowledge on the law of libel is somewhat lacking.

The AWEB website describes me as "Group Manager" of the Money Laundering and Crime Discussion group. A casual observer might assume from that description that I in some way moderate the postings in this discussion group. In fact I do not, and indeed can not, moderate or edit the postings here (except for the postings which I make myself, which carry my name and photograph).

I know of absolutely no evidence to suggest that Ms Harman has been dishonest in connection with her expenses as an MP nor am I aware of anything to suggest that she has abused her position in parliament in relation to the expenses claims of any other MP or MPs.

Accordingly I entirely disassociate myself from any posting here which makes or supports such allegations.

I am very careful in the words I use. My professional reputation depends upon it.

Perhaps a little more investigation of the facts might put your mind at rest David. The use of taxpayers money for party purposes by Harriet Harman and others is a matter of public record, as is her attempt to hide the facts from the public (as proven in Hansard).

Never concern yourself about my ability to defend myself. I never, ever, walk away from a fight. I have a framed print handed to me many years ago by a colleague after I had torn his "star" witnesses apart. On it is inscribed quite simply -

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death I will fear no evil ........ cos I'm the meanest son of a bitch in the whole damn valley".

I think he was trying to tell me something :)

I'm very happy with my reputation for being absolutely fearless and ruthless in pursuit of the truth and the defence of my clients regardless of who I might upset.

Getting back to our original topic of a lawyer making an idiot of herself, I have to say that (perhaps unfairly) I would not expect to find wise words emanating from a Los Angeles lawyer. But I was pleasantly surprised by the quotation:

"Perhaps an attorney’s greatest asset as a professional is his or her capacity to provide dispassionate, objective advice to clients who are emotionally overwrought".

"a COMPLETE defence to an accusation of libel is that what was said is true, and of course in this case, there is the added justification that it is in the public interest that the facts be made public (which would completely rule out any attempt to stifle publication)."

Oh, if that were only the case. The UK is still a laughing stock in this regard. Have you heard of the antics of Mr Justice Eadie?

the whole question of privacy law is very vexed but i believe that Eady is being replaced by Tugenhadt - where parliament dioes not do its job properly ( and given previous commenst on this thread are we surprised) then the judiciary is asked to interpret; some of us dont like the answer we are given but the decisions can be appealed to teh supreme court and if the poliiticians dont like it they can change and clarify the law , some hope i suppose - i may be wrong but you seem to be intimating that the supression of information goes too far - well obviously every case is different and as they say there but for the grace of god go we

Not always true. Indeed any counsel who does not consult his client before dismissing a witness to see if he has missed some small but important point, is, in my opinion, not doing his best for his client.

Representing yourself can in fact be the best option, particularly if you have the capacity to remain calm and view a case as a game of verbal chess, which is actually what a trial is.

We must all get used to the idea of defendants defending themselves, as, with the disgraceful changes to legal aid, no one appearing in magistrates courts will be represented (unless rich).

Similarly defamation cases no longer qualify for legal aid, so again it will be the preserve of the rich (footballers and the like).

I would have been infinitely more worried if the judge's travelling habits had been in issue. The primary qualification for elevation to the Bench is never (knowingly, viz sober) having travelled on a bus or not within the last 30 years. After appointment this record is easier to maintain as one's man collects one and drops one back after one has been "sitting". True, this is only on a relatively small number of non-golfing days. I'm sure judges would not enlist the services of their man on a dies non e.g to decorate a duckhouse.

As to fornication arrangements a judge once wearily remarked in a case of dogging involving a bubble car where the defence was that it was impossible in such a vehicle that in his long experience on the bench sexual intercourse was possible anywhere except possibly on the ceiling. Sed quaere.

went to e weaver censured by her former colleagues on the michigan supreme court for secretly taping and then releasing the judicial deliberations in an attempt to to damage the reelection bid of another justice (presumably chosen before J Bolton - see below)

CREATIVE LAWYER OF THE YEAR

KA Stahibush suspended by Ohio SC for overbilling - charging more than 24 hours in a day.

GOING BACK TO ******* JUDGE DREADFUL- FROM TIMES T2 section

apparently judge Bolton had already been told to remove her chewing gum by the ..clerk - T2 goes on to to say ' JB ..certainly seems to have been method acting every sullen lag who .. appeared before her. the chewing gum was an inspired touch though she missed a trick by not wearing a scrunchie or having an army of supporters blowing kisses from the public galery and shouting ' love you babe'

There are some good judges, and there are some eeejits. I could name one who I love appearing in front of as I simply can't lose, and another who is so bad that I dont bother calling witneses, just use my time filling out the appeal forms. However, the majority are reasonable.

The people I have a problem with and who, in my opinion, have no place in a "justice" system, are magistrates. They are part-time, amateur, still mainly drawn from a totally unrepresentative section of society, and labour under the delusion that all police officers are honest.

Quite simply, for the last 10-15 years our legal system has been under attack by governments and I'm very glad that nowdays I can pick and choose what I do, and only get involved in cases that interest me - generally where I believe there has been or may be a miscarriage of justice.

Our judiciary has been hog tied by stupid "sentencing guidelines" which strip courts of the freedom to pass appropraite sentences depending on the facts of the case. One can only hope that this government will carry out its promises, and rip up the bulk of Labours idiotic legislation including all of Harriet Harmans pathetic and prejudicial "equalities" legislation which is actually a vile attack upon freedom of thought and freedom of expression.